Litigation

We argued that mandatory life sentences imposed on children are disproportionate and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Such sentences are incompatible with the penological goals of deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation.

We argued that a juvenile's right to due process is violated when he is automatically transferred to the adult system contrary to U.S. and Washington Supreme Court precedent articulating that youth cannot be mandatorily treated as adults.

The State appealed the trial court’s decision that lifetime registration of an adult for a crime committed as a juvenile is unconstitutional. We argued that the appeal is moot in light of Commonwealth v. Muniz, where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held retroactive registration under SORNA unconstitutional.

We argued that imposing felony murder liability on an unarmed 16-year-old decoy for the actions of an armed adult co-defendant in a robbery gone bad contravenes U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence and adolescent neuroscientific research.

We argued that Washington’s statute permitting Miller-defendants to petition a sentencing review board for early release fails to meaningfully remedy an unconstitutional 75-year sentence imposed on a 17-year-old.

We argued that the death penalty is unconstitutional as applied to 18- to 21-year-olds because they share many of the defining characteristics of youth under the age of 18 that inherently make them less culpable and more amenable to rehabilitation than adults.

We argued that Arizona's postconviction evidentiary hearing is an inappropriate prerequisite to resentencing juvenile lifers because it places the burden on the defendant to demonstrate eligibility for a resentencing hearing.

Juvenile Law Center filed an amicus brief on behalf of a 15-year-old who was transferred to adult court without citing any specific findings of fact or evidence underpinning the transfer decision, and subsequently sentenced to 99 years in an adult prison.

These briefs involved a thirteen-year-old student who was questioned by four adults, including a uniformed police officer, on school grounds regarding a series of break-ins. Juvenile Law Center argued that the student should have been considered in custody for Miranda purposes.

Supreme Court held the execution of juveniles unconstitutional. Juvenile Law Center’s brief argued the developmental differences between adolescents and adults in critical areas, including impulse control and understanding consequences.

Support Juvenile Law Center

One of the most important lessons from our 40 years of experience is that children involved with the justice and foster care systems need zealous legal advocates. Your support for our work is more important now than ever before.